TF: With your approach to Casino Royale, how much freedom did you allow yourself from the Bond formula?

MW: We approached it almost as though there hadn’t been a Bond film made before.

We did have the pre-title sequence, but other than that we didn’t have a Moneypenny and we sort of took a newer look at it.

TF: Were you always clear from the start that this would be a reboot of the franchise, a bit of a clearing of the decks?

BB: As Michael said: we just decided that we would make it as if no Bond film had been made before and we were lucky we had the novel.

Of course, it was written in the ’50s so it had to be updated, so we called Rob [Wade] and Neal [Purvis] and they did a great draft.

They invented a lot of the really exciting things, the freestyle running, the house collapsing at the end.

They had a really good script, which excited Martin and then he got in Paul Haggis who did a wonderful polish.

So it wasn’t as if we were just starting all over again.

TF: If you had one overriding aim or priority for the film, what would you say it was?

BB: Well I think it’s about the character. You know, it’s the first time you really get to understand the inner workings of Bond.

Events happen which define him: it’s his journey, it’s his chrysalis; he comes out the other end a completely transformed human being.

It’s a hell of a role, so I guess our priority was about the character, and casting the right person.

Next: The casting shortlist